What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
In this astute mix of cultural critique and biblical studies, John H. Walton presents and defends twenty propositions supporting a literary and theological understanding of Genesis 1 within the context of the ancient Near Eastern world and unpacks its implications for our modern scientific understanding of origins.
Ideal for students, professors, pastors, and lay listeners with an interest in the intelligent design controversy and creation-evolution debates, Walton's thoughtful analysis unpacks seldom appreciated aspects of the biblical text and sets Bible-believing scientists free to investigate the question of origins.
The books in the Lost World series follow the pattern set by Bible scholar John H. Walton, bringing a fresh, close interpretation of the Hebrew text and knowledge of ancient Near Eastern literature to an accessible discussion of the biblical topic at hand, using a series of logic-based propositions.
Ideal for students, professors, pastors, and lay listeners with an interest in the intelligent design controversy and creation-evolution debates, Walton's thoughtful analysis unpacks seldom appreciated aspects of the biblical text and sets Bible-believing scientists free to investigate the question of origins.
The books in the Lost World series follow the pattern set by Bible scholar John H. Walton, bringing a fresh, close interpretation of the Hebrew text and knowledge of ancient Near Eastern literature to an accessible discussion of the biblical topic at hand, using a series of logic-based propositions.
- GenresTheology
Audio CD
Published January 23, 2024
6 people are currently reading
54 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 20, 2025
A ‘FUNCTIONAL’ PERSPECTIVE ON GENESIS THAT ALLOWS FOR AN EVOLUTIONARY VIEW
[NOTE: this review pertains to the WRITTEN version, not the AUDIO version.]
John H. Walton (born 1952) is an Old Testament scholar. He is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Wheaton College and was formerly a Moody Bible Institute professor.
He wrote in the Prologue of this 2009 book, “The first chapter of Genesis lies at the heart of our understanding of what the Bible communicates about God as Creator… In this book I have proposed a reading of Genesis that I believe to be faithful to the context of the original audience and author, and one that preserves and advances the theological vitality of this text. Along the way is opportunity to discuss numerous areas of controversy for Christians, including relating Genesis to modern science especially evolution. Intelligent Design and creationism will be considered… and I make some comments about the debate concerning public education.”
Later, he explains, “in this book I propose that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system.” (Pg. 26)
He states, “So what are the cultural ideas behind Genesis 1?… Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology… it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites … did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical … They believed that the sky was material… solid enough to support the residence of deity… they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought… And God did not think it important to revise their thinking.” (Pg 16)
He observes, “It is interesting that many people who discuss Genesis 1 express an interest in interpreting the chapter ‘literally.’ By this they generally mean that it is to be taken exactly for what it says rather than to understand Genesis 1 simply in metaphoric, allegorical or symbolic terms… Our interpretive commitment is to read the text at what I call ‘face value.’ (Pg. 39)
He explains, “If we conclude that Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, we are not thereby suggesting that God is not responsible for material origins. I firmly believe that God IS fully responsible for material origins, and that … material origins do involve at some point creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not the one we are asking. We are asking a textual question: What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1?” (Pg. 44)
He states, “[In Gen 1:2-7] if the Hebrew term is to be taken in its normal contextual sense, it indicates that God made a solid dome to hold up waters above the earth… We cannot think that we can interpret the word ‘expanse/firmament’ as simply the sky or the atmosphere if that is not what the author meant by it… We may find some escape from the problem, however, as we continue to think about creation as ultimately concerned with the functional rather than the material. If this is not an account of material origins, then Genesis 1 is affirming nothing about the material world. Whether or not there actually are cosmic waters being held back by a solid dome does not matter.” (Pg. 56-57)
He suggests, “We should not worry about the question of ‘truth’ with regard to the Bible’s use of Old World science … The Old World science found in the Bible would not be considered ‘wrong’ or ‘false’ as much as it would just offer a perspective from a different vantage point.” (Pg. 61)
He clarifies, “It is important to reiterate that I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures. Instead the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world, and as we examine Genesis, we can see that Israelites thought in similar ways.” (Pg. 79)
He argues, “In this view of Genesis 1… the nature of the days takes on a much less significant role than has normally been the case… in that they no longer have any connection to the material age of the earth. These are seven 24-hour days. This has always been the best reading of the Hebrew text. [Some] have… suggested that the days should be understood as long eras (the day-age view). This has never been convincing. The evidence used … is that the word translated ‘day (yom) is often a longer period of time…. The first problem with this approach is that the examples used … referring to an extended period of time are examples in which the word is being used idiomatically: ‘in that day.’ … The day-age and others … seek a solution in trying to stretch the meaning of ‘yom,’ whereas we propose that once we understand the nature of the creation account, there is no longer any need to stretch ‘yom.’” (Pg. 91-92)
He states, “For those who have… adopted the framework hypothesis, the theory proposed in this book does not require them to discard that hypothesis, but only to accept the functional perspective alongside it.” (Pg 112)
He summarizes, “I have proposed here that Genesis is NOT metaphysically neutral---it mandates an affirmation of teleology (purpose), even as it leaves open the descriptive mechanism for material origins.” (Pg. 117) He continues, “In the position of this book, the idea that Genesis 1 deals with functional origins opens up a new possibility for seeing both continuity and a dynamic aspect in God’s work as Creator, because he continues to sustain the functions moment by moment.” (Pg. 121)
He notes, “The view of Genesis offered in this book is also teleological but accepts that all of creation is the result of God’s handiwork, whether naturalistic mechanisms are identifiable or not, and whether evolutionary processes took place or not. God has designed all that there is and may have brought some of these designs into existence instantaneously, whereas others he may have chosen to bring into existence through long, complicated processes. Neither procedure would be any less an act of God.” (Pg. 131)
He clarifies, “This does not mean that all aspects of evolutionary theory should be accepted uncritically or even that evolution provides the best model… I am… merely suggesting that neither Genesis 1 nor biblical theology in general give us any reason to reject it as a model as long as we see God involved at every level and remain aware of our theological convictions.” (Pg. 137) He adds, “Genesis 1 does not offer a descriptive model for material origins. In the absence of such a model, Christians would be free to believe whatever descriptive model for origins makes the most sense.” (Pg. 140)
He states, “Biological evolution is the reigning paradigm, so we have asked whether this view requires the believer to compromise theology or biblical teaching. We have concluded that there is nothing intrinsic to the scientific details… that would require compromise.” (Pg. 165) He adds, “In the interpretation of the text that I have offered, very little found in evolutionary theory would be objectionable, though certainly some of the metaphysical claims of evolution remain unacceptable.” (Pg. 170)
This book will be of keen interest to Christians open to the idea of evolution, and who reject ‘young earth’ creationism.
[NOTE: this review pertains to the WRITTEN version, not the AUDIO version.]
John H. Walton (born 1952) is an Old Testament scholar. He is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Wheaton College and was formerly a Moody Bible Institute professor.
He wrote in the Prologue of this 2009 book, “The first chapter of Genesis lies at the heart of our understanding of what the Bible communicates about God as Creator… In this book I have proposed a reading of Genesis that I believe to be faithful to the context of the original audience and author, and one that preserves and advances the theological vitality of this text. Along the way is opportunity to discuss numerous areas of controversy for Christians, including relating Genesis to modern science especially evolution. Intelligent Design and creationism will be considered… and I make some comments about the debate concerning public education.”
Later, he explains, “in this book I propose that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system.” (Pg. 26)
He states, “So what are the cultural ideas behind Genesis 1?… Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology… it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites … did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical … They believed that the sky was material… solid enough to support the residence of deity… they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought… And God did not think it important to revise their thinking.” (Pg 16)
He observes, “It is interesting that many people who discuss Genesis 1 express an interest in interpreting the chapter ‘literally.’ By this they generally mean that it is to be taken exactly for what it says rather than to understand Genesis 1 simply in metaphoric, allegorical or symbolic terms… Our interpretive commitment is to read the text at what I call ‘face value.’ (Pg. 39)
He explains, “If we conclude that Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, we are not thereby suggesting that God is not responsible for material origins. I firmly believe that God IS fully responsible for material origins, and that … material origins do involve at some point creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not the one we are asking. We are asking a textual question: What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1?” (Pg. 44)
He states, “[In Gen 1:2-7] if the Hebrew term is to be taken in its normal contextual sense, it indicates that God made a solid dome to hold up waters above the earth… We cannot think that we can interpret the word ‘expanse/firmament’ as simply the sky or the atmosphere if that is not what the author meant by it… We may find some escape from the problem, however, as we continue to think about creation as ultimately concerned with the functional rather than the material. If this is not an account of material origins, then Genesis 1 is affirming nothing about the material world. Whether or not there actually are cosmic waters being held back by a solid dome does not matter.” (Pg. 56-57)
He suggests, “We should not worry about the question of ‘truth’ with regard to the Bible’s use of Old World science … The Old World science found in the Bible would not be considered ‘wrong’ or ‘false’ as much as it would just offer a perspective from a different vantage point.” (Pg. 61)
He clarifies, “It is important to reiterate that I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures. Instead the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world, and as we examine Genesis, we can see that Israelites thought in similar ways.” (Pg. 79)
He argues, “In this view of Genesis 1… the nature of the days takes on a much less significant role than has normally been the case… in that they no longer have any connection to the material age of the earth. These are seven 24-hour days. This has always been the best reading of the Hebrew text. [Some] have… suggested that the days should be understood as long eras (the day-age view). This has never been convincing. The evidence used … is that the word translated ‘day (yom) is often a longer period of time…. The first problem with this approach is that the examples used … referring to an extended period of time are examples in which the word is being used idiomatically: ‘in that day.’ … The day-age and others … seek a solution in trying to stretch the meaning of ‘yom,’ whereas we propose that once we understand the nature of the creation account, there is no longer any need to stretch ‘yom.’” (Pg. 91-92)
He states, “For those who have… adopted the framework hypothesis, the theory proposed in this book does not require them to discard that hypothesis, but only to accept the functional perspective alongside it.” (Pg 112)
He summarizes, “I have proposed here that Genesis is NOT metaphysically neutral---it mandates an affirmation of teleology (purpose), even as it leaves open the descriptive mechanism for material origins.” (Pg. 117) He continues, “In the position of this book, the idea that Genesis 1 deals with functional origins opens up a new possibility for seeing both continuity and a dynamic aspect in God’s work as Creator, because he continues to sustain the functions moment by moment.” (Pg. 121)
He notes, “The view of Genesis offered in this book is also teleological but accepts that all of creation is the result of God’s handiwork, whether naturalistic mechanisms are identifiable or not, and whether evolutionary processes took place or not. God has designed all that there is and may have brought some of these designs into existence instantaneously, whereas others he may have chosen to bring into existence through long, complicated processes. Neither procedure would be any less an act of God.” (Pg. 131)
He clarifies, “This does not mean that all aspects of evolutionary theory should be accepted uncritically or even that evolution provides the best model… I am… merely suggesting that neither Genesis 1 nor biblical theology in general give us any reason to reject it as a model as long as we see God involved at every level and remain aware of our theological convictions.” (Pg. 137) He adds, “Genesis 1 does not offer a descriptive model for material origins. In the absence of such a model, Christians would be free to believe whatever descriptive model for origins makes the most sense.” (Pg. 140)
He states, “Biological evolution is the reigning paradigm, so we have asked whether this view requires the believer to compromise theology or biblical teaching. We have concluded that there is nothing intrinsic to the scientific details… that would require compromise.” (Pg. 165) He adds, “In the interpretation of the text that I have offered, very little found in evolutionary theory would be objectionable, though certainly some of the metaphysical claims of evolution remain unacceptable.” (Pg. 170)
This book will be of keen interest to Christians open to the idea of evolution, and who reject ‘young earth’ creationism.
February 17, 2025
If 4.5 stars was an option I'd give it that; it didn't quite make a 5 star because there were points in the book that felt tedious and boring. I understand such passages were necessary for explanation but it got a little dragged down at times. The middle of the book I thought was the best and should be read by every Christian. Well worth the read, and I will be purchasing my own copy in time for my personal biblical library.
December 8, 2024
An excellent exploration of Biblical teleology. Exploring the functional accounts of creation over a
a material account of Genesis 1.
a material account of Genesis 1.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews